Dr Scott Burchill is a lecturer in international relations at Deakin University and a regular Webdiary contributor.
(1) “It’s my view that Iraq is really irrelevant to the intent and the purposes of Al Qaeda. It may be something that is used for propaganda and recruitment purposes, and this is not only my view but it’s also the view of the Director General of ASIO Dennis Richardson. He gave voice to this view in a major speech he gave last year.” John Howard, 7.30 Report, ABC, 15 March 2004
(2) “But we also need to understand that this contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror… I find it astonishing when people claim that Iraq is a diversion from the real war against terrorism. The reality is that international terrorism has invested an enormous amount in breaking the will of the coalition in Iraq. Not only are organisations associated with al Qaeda operating in Iraq but each and every turn of the Iraq struggle is interpreted by spokesmen for international terrorism as part of the ongoing campaign against the United States and her allies. Whatever may have been the origins of the horrific attack in Madrid, al Qaeda and its associates opportunistically associated that attack with Spain’s participation in the military operation in Iraq.” John Howard, Address to the Institute of Public Affairs,The Australian Club, Melbourne, 19 May 2004
(3) “I’ll be warning that a defeat for the coalition in Iraq will greatly hearten and embolden terrorists in our part of the world. What people have got to understand is that irrespective of the views about whether we should have gone there in the first place, terrorists see Iraq as the frontline in the international struggle against countries like Australia and our friends in our region and if the coalition fails in Iraq, if the terrorists win in Iraq, they will also win and organisations like Jemaah Islamiyah with all its reach in the Asian Pacific region will also win. A win for the terrorists in Iraq will embolden and lead to the recruitment of more terrorists in our part of the world.” John Howard Doorstop interview, Canberra, 18 June 2004
How do we explain the Prime Minister’s change of view? How did Iraq go from being “irrelevant to the intent and the purposes of Al Qaeda” in March to it being seen by terrorists “as the frontline in the international struggle against countries like Australia and our friends in our region” by June?
The answer is that in March, Howard was trying to undermine AFP Chief Mick Keelty’s unremarkable and obvious remarks that Australia’s participation in the Iraq war increased the threat of terrorism. So in March it was necessary to attack Keelty and defend the war in Iraq by separating it from the so called war on terror.
By June, however, all the pretexts for the war, including WMD and Saddam-Al Qaeda links, had long since collapsed and it was necessary to attack Mark Latham’s policy of returning home Australian soldiers in Iraq by Christmas. Suddenly, Iraq is central to the intent and purposes of Al Qaeda. In fact it has regional and global significance for the war on terror.
Who said Howard didn’t see international politics through a domestic prism?